Be free and believe,

Believe and be free

(Estrada v Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651)
Reported by: Rose Kareen Defensor, LLB1E

While man is finite, he seeks and subscribes to the Infinite. Respondent Soledad Escritor
once again stands before the Court invoking her religious freedom and her Jehovah God in a
bid to save her family united without the benefit of legal marriage - and livelihood.

FACTS
In a sworn-letter complaint dated July 27, 2000, complainant Alejandro Estrada
requested Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of
Las Pias City, for an investigation of respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in
said court, for living with a man not her husband, and having borne a child within this
live-in arrangement.
Estrada believes that Escritor is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the
image of the court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it
might appear that the court condones her act. Consequently, respondent was charged
with committing "disgraceful and immoral conduct under Book V, Title I, Chapter VI,
Sec. 46(b)(5) of the Revised Administrative Code.
For Jehovahs Witnesses, the Declaration of Pledging Witnesses allows members of
the congregation who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital
relations. The Declaration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the
congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. As laid out
by the tenets of their faith, the Jehovahs congregation requires that at the time the
declarations are executed, the couple cannot secure the civil authorities approval of the
marital relationship because of legal impediments.
Only couples who have been baptized and in good standing may execute the
Declaration, which requires the approval of the elders of the congregation. As a matter of
practice, the marital status of the declarants and their respective spouses commission of
adultery are investigated before the declarations are executed. Escritor and Quilapios
declarations were executed in the usual and approved form prescribed by the Jehovahs
Witnesses, approved by elders of the congregation where the declarations were executed,
and recorded in the Watch Tower Central Office.
Moreover, the Jehovahs congregation believes that once all legal impediments for
the couple are lifted, the validity of the declarations ceases, and the couple should legalize
their union.

ISSUE
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of
"gross and immoral conduct."

RULING
Our Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room
for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause.
Benevolent neutrality recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals
and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent
possible within flexible constitutional limits. It still remains to be seen if respondent is
entitled to such doctrine as the state has not been afforded the chance to demonstrate the
compelling state interest of prohibiting the act of respondent.
Thus, the Solicitor General in arguing that respondent should be held
administratively liable as the arrangement she had was "illegal per se because, by
universally recognized standards, it is inherently or by its very nature bad, improper,
immoral and contrary to good conscience, he failed to appreciate that benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does
not offend compelling state interests.
In view whereof, the instant administrative complaint is dismissed

APPLICATION TO NATURAL LAW
In this particular case and under these distinct circumstances, respondent
Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for
exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion.

The fact that the court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that
freedoms - including religious freedom - may be enjoyed, had given a significant change
in Escritors life as a member of her religion and as a member of the society.
In the area of religious exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man stands
accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be
upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that
will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that such state interest exists,
man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.

JUSTIFICATORY USE OF NATURAL LAW
The Supreme Court in this case applied natural law in its justificatory use. The
natural law is written on the heart of all human beings; therefore some decisions of the
Supreme Court may be accepted as true or right simply through the exercise of reason.
Even if the issue therein is frowned upon by the society, the natural law justifies the
intention of the administrators of the law which is to keep the respect among religions
and to uphold the freedom of religion. Hence, the natural law is a valuable foundation for
moral reasoning, where believers and non-believers can meet and build agreement.
In the case at bar, liberal thinkers, who considers the SC decision as acceptable
and the issue does not necessarily affect the society, might come into disagreement with
conventional thinkers who, on the other hand, believe that the decision of the highest
court is inappropriate because it is an obvious immorality that a woman living with a man
not her husband is still upheld. Moreover, deep disagreement in the use of natural law
creates real intellectual problems. This is where the Justificatory use of natural law comes
in. The decision was justified through reasoning.
Can we expect people to give their consent to the rule of natural law, as a basis for
State enforced social policy, when serious scrutiny of the natural law emphasizes our
deficiencies? Or should we concentrate on pursuing the sharp verdict of the law upon the
human heart so that all violators vanish and the earth will be a perfect place to live?